World Could the law be changed to have atheists and agnostics barred from holding political office?

[Bouan Philippe]

The fear of God is a religious consensus amongst all the Abrahamic religions.

Consequently, atheists and agnostics who have no such fear should be barred from holding political office, because such people are a danger to society and they endanger their own people.

Please discuss.

 

[NathanH83]

The fear of God is a religious consensus amongst all the Abrahamic religions.

Consequently, atheists and agnostics who have no such fear should be barred from holding political office, because such people are a danger to society and they endanger their own people.

Please discuss.

Yes, I agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JRT]

There are several states where such laws are on the books but unenforced. Any attempt to enforce such a law would be struck down, and rightly so, as contravening the Constitution. Nations like the USA and Canada and Australia are societies that are multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi -religious and there is no going back from that. Discriminatory laws will only lead to tensions and possible violence. I am white and Christian and I will fight if necessary to prevent my fellow Christians from becoming oppressors.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

There are several states where such laws are on the books but unenforced. Ant attempt to enforce such a law would be struck down, and rightly so, as contravening the Constitution. Nations like the USA and Canada and Australia are societies that are multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi -religious and there is no going back from that. Discriminatory laws will only lead to tensions and possible violence. I am white and Christianand Iwill fight if necessaty to prevent my fellow Christians from becoming oppressors.

Presupposing that America would still exist to enable such a fight, but I don't think it will retain its sovereignty for much longer.

 

[Josiah]

Could the law be changed to have atheists and agnostics barred from holding political office?​

Could? Yes.

Should? No.

I'm not in favor of the secular state imposing religious tests on its citizens.



.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

Could the law be changed to have atheists and agnostics barred from holding political office?​

Could? Yes.

Should? No.

I'm not in favor of the secular state imposing religious tests on its citizens.



.

Whether it's appropriate or not depends on the country in question.

Thus, there is no "right" or "wrong", but only different opinions by different people.

Besides, Josiah has been asked yet again to mediate this message, which represents the half-baked opinion of multilateral politicians who are from several countries.

All the more reasons to reject and disregard this useless comment as indicative of the enemy on the retreat.

Ultimately, I still maintain that might is right, and the winning side of history is always the stronger side.

Consequently, the only opinion that counts is the opinion of those on the right side of history.

Hallelujah!

 

[Andrew]

Christians at one time were considered atheist.

The thing about agnostics and atheists is that they argue over morals based on what's good and what's bad, still they are complexed over the problem of evil.. "Animals" are harmonic in nature, so what of humans?
Why are humans aware of mortality and of evil?
WE have the good book, yet they play it by ear without any instruction, thus the difference between "good and evil" is purely ones individual opinion that only contributes to the massive ever lasting melting pot of collective conflicting ideas.
Christians have some theological disagreements but overall we acknowledge that only God is GOOD and by living for Him our consensus remains a conservative one.

Secularists have no structure to base what is good and what isn't, they never will, it will always be an individual opinion or a full dictatorship of oppression

 

[JRT]

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

But some posters on this forum obviously think differently and have decided to go on the offensive. It doesn't take a deep reading of history to understand that every time a religion or a political philosophy (there really is not much difference) decides to take exclusive control of society nothing good results and humanity suffers. This has happened so often and in so many places that it is astonishing that the lesson has not been learned. Tomas Torquemada would be so pleased.

 

[Albion]

Here's the question:

Could the law be changed to have atheists and agnostics barred from holding political office?​

The answer is "yes." It could. Almost any change could be made.

Ours (USA) is a Constitutional Republic and its Constitution provides for amendments. Fortunately, the framers made that a project which isn't likely to be done in a hurry or without very substantial and broad support from the whole of the country. That's why it has happened infrequently.

 

[JRT]

Here's the question:

Could the law be changed to have atheists and agnostics barred from holding political office?​

The answer is "yes." It could. Almost any change could be made.

Ours (USA) is a Constitutional Republic and its Constitution provides for amendments. Fortunately, the framers made that a project which isn't likely to be done in a hurry or without very substantial and broad support from the whole of the country. That's why it has happened infrequently.

Just 27 times.

 

[Albion]

Right. That isn't a lot, considering that the opportunity has existed for over 200 very eventful years!

 

[hedrick]

I trust this isn't a serious proposal. Doing that would guarantee the corruption of Christianity.

 

[kiwimac]

We did this for an extended period. It's called the Dark Ages.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

Christians at one time were considered atheist.

The thing about agnostics and atheists is that they argue over morals based on what's good and what's bad, still they are complexed over the problem of evil.. "Animals" are harmonic in nature, so what of humans?
Why are humans aware of mortality and of evil?
WE have the good book, yet they play it by ear without any instruction, thus the difference between "good and evil" is purely ones individual opinion that only contributes to the massive ever lasting melting pot of collective conflicting ideas.
Christians have some theological disagreements but overall we acknowledge that only God is GOOD and by living for Him our consensus remains a conservative one.

Secularists have no structure to base what is good and what isn't, they never will, it will always be an individual opinion or a full dictatorship of oppression

The consensus is a conservative one?

Then, I take it that you support the Anglo-American special relationship, but does it reflect the ongoing viewpoint of the political establishment - all 650 Lords and 800 MP's?

 

[Andrew]

The consensus is a conservative one?

Then, I take it that you support the Anglo-American special relationship, but does it reflect the ongoing viewpoint of the political establishment - all 650 Lords and 800 MP's?

What's the Anglo-American relationship?

Im just saying that the Christian moral standard comes from the Word of God, having guidance and instructions from the one authority.. the secularist moral standard is 100% chaos, pure autonomy is given for each individual to decide what's best for the whole, complete anarchy, no guidelines just selfish gratitude.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

What's the Anglo-American relationship?

Im just saying that the Christian moral standard comes from the Word of God, having guidance and instructions from the one authority.. the secularist moral standard is 100% chaos, pure autonomy is given for each individual to decide what's best for the whole, complete anarchy, no guidelines just selfish gratitude.

What is the Word of God?

Is it only the content of the Bible?

Or is the Word of God not Jesus himself (John 1:1-3 & Revelation 19:13)?

Does the Son of God not have the authority to provide moral guidance and judgment for better, for worse? (Matthew 25:33 & Romans 9:22-23)

Lastly, is God still guilty of "selfish gratitude" by nominating a particular country as the global epicentre of the Millennial Kingdom, even if that country is not your own (because you seem to attribute God with human characteristics, such as human frailty, error and shortcomings)?

 

[Albion]

Christians have some theological disagreements but overall we acknowledge that only God is GOOD and by living for Him our consensus remains a conservative one.

Yes, political conservatism takes the view of Man that he is both good and bad. He is fallen from the condition Adam and Eve initially enjoyed, but humans are still formed in the image of God and are capable of doing good.

Secularists have no structure to base what is good and what isn't, they never will, it will always be an individual opinion or a full dictatorship of oppression

By contrast, secularists and political leftists view Man as capable of being made good--that's thanks to the direction and coercive power of the rulers who presume to know what's best for all of the governed.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

What's the Anglo-American relationship?

Im just saying that the Christian moral standard comes from the Word of God, having guidance and instructions from the one authority.. the secularist moral standard is 100% chaos, pure autonomy is given for each individual to decide what's best for the whole, complete anarchy, no guidelines just selfish gratitude.

America was founded on Christian principles, not on atheistic ones. The Mayflower Compact states that they came here to establish a Christian nation, not a Godless one. Godless nations were already here, and they were wiped out with the plague, in order to make room for Christianity in this land.
[emoji3583]

 

[JRT]

America was founded on Christian principles, not on atheistic ones. The Mayflower Compact states that they came here to establish a Christian nation, not a Godless one. Godless nations were already here, and they were wiped out with the plague, in order to make room for Christianity in this land.
[emoji3583]

It is not often I meet a person who is not only a white supremacist and an American exceptionalist but also a Christian supremacist as well.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

It is not often I meet a person who is not only a white supremacist and an American exceptionalist but also a Christian supremacist as well.

Christendom truly is the Supreme religion, just as the coming Christ rules and will rule Supreme over all of humanity. However, the color of one’s skin or their ethnicity/nationality in no way determines the content of their character, or their value unto God Almighty, as all men are created in God’s image, and all men are created equal. But to those nations that have forsaken their Creator, judgment comes, swiftly, even severely, just as in the days of Noah, as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, as in the days of Joshua/Jericho, and all throughout the history of the human race. I find that if so many natives in the Americas were wiped out so severely by plague, it was either because an innocent people were suffering, or because a guilty and uncivilized, barbaric nation was suffering the wrath of the Almighty for their sin and rejection of the gospel. But be assured, that I do not in any way whatsoever determine to assume that their race, color, or skin tone is the criteria by which a man is to be judged or discriminated against.